Brookline, Massachusetts, remains the largest municipality in the state that does not operate as a city, a status that raises questions about its governance structure.
Instead of a mayor or city council, Brookline follows a town meeting model, which some argue is a relic of a bygone era, particularly ill-suited for a community boasting 63,000 residents.
This form of governance, rooted in New England’s colonial past, requires residents to gather to make decisions on various issues but has evolved over time from open town meetings to a representative system, whereby 255 elected representatives now serve the citizens.
A recently concluded 16-month study by a Brookline town committee, comprising political and academic figures, explored the efficacy of this representative town meeting style, juxtaposing it against mayor-city council and city council-city manager structures.
The committee, after extensive research including testimonies from experts and production of nine original scholarly papers, urged a charter commission process to reimagine Brookline’s governmental framework, signaling a shift towards more contemporary governance.
Proponents of the town meeting model often perceive it as an embodiment of participatory democracy.
However, the committee concluded it operates more as a form of representative democracy that fails to optimize voter influence over their elected officials, raising significant concerns regarding its effectiveness.
Three principal issues with Brookline’s electoral system have been identified by the committee.
Firstly, elections should be comprehensible and straightforward.
Despite annual municipal elections held in the spring, participation in Brookline is notably low, with turnout figures sometimes dropping below 20 percent.
Complicated ballots include various local offices alongside town meeting representatives, contributing to the obscurity of town meeting elections for the average voter, where the distinction between candidates is minimal.
Secondly, government transparency is a principal concern.
Brookline’s governance structure, involving a select board and a town administrator, complicates understanding for the average citizen about who holds which powers.
The entangled nature of responsibilities often clouds the lines between the authority of the select board and the representative town meeting, presenting a convoluted picture that dissuades civic engagement.
Lastly, the accountability of elected officials is questionable within this framework.
While some defend the system on the grounds that representatives are up for reelection every three years, accountability extends beyond merely being on a ballot.
Effective accountability hinges on transparency regarding policymakers’ actions and principles; Brookline’s current structure obstructs that clarity.
The committee posits that these electoral deficiencies hinder Brookline’s ability to address pressing issues, such as enhancing the supply of affordable housing and improving the town’s financial health.
Although some defenders highlight the loss of citizen participation that might accompany the dismantling of the town meeting, the committee contends that numerous avenues exist for community involvement and volunteerism beyond this archaic governance structure.
The current town meeting governance system, argued to be a romanticized remnant of a simpler time, proves challenging to navigate in a large community like Brookline.
Meetings require lengthy durations and often suffer from poor attendance, which further complicates the decision-making process through a structure that lacks clarity.
It appears that the town committee’s findings challenge the status quo and posit that pursuing modernization in Brookline’s governance could yield increased citizen engagement and better public services, illuminating a path forward for the municipality.
image source from：bostonglobe
